Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep.
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills.
=> for more information type in google "thedeenshow"
since the first days of man, God has shown all men His invisible atributes in a plain to see way through all that is made. Since those early days until now, most men have not cared to see things for what they are. All people were and still are haters of God and supress the truth. That God saves some from such a state and how he saves them is a testimony to His other atributes, the visibile ones, such as justice, wisdom, and love. If you would like to know more email me @ ethan.r.leavitt@gmail
@ethanthereed So, your rebuttal to the facts presented in my video is a regurgitation of Romans?
Try harder.
For starters, try explaining Genesis 1:2 without using circular reasoning. Do that, and we'll chat all you want. And Ethan, do keep in mind that I'm an ex-minister, so I know the scriptures better than most. Thanks.
I feel I must put forth the simple idea that these things are not to be taken too literally. I'm not talking about bending things to fit whatever you want, but just plain common sense. When Paul said "known to all" the "all" in his statement is clearly directed to those in his sphere of knowledge... those living at that time in that society - he's obviously not talking about people in remote tribes whose existence was totally unknown to him.
@LPC1200 That would be a rather nonsensical take on this passage. Paul's argument concludes with, "so no man is without excuse." Are you really going to posit that Paul meant "no man IN THIS AREA is without excuse"? Paul also thought the gospel had reached "the entire world". (Col. 1:23) We have Paul 'clearly' proclaiming the 'world' will be judged, as does Christ, repeatedly.
So, what you are saying is that some people just cant believe in God. thats nonsense. Becaues allot of atheist have been former believers. And btw, it doesnt matter. Because you still have to demonstrate God in a way that works outside of faith to prove that he is real.
@gulbirk // So, what you are saying is that some people just cant believe in God. //
Yep. It's 100% impossible for someone who lived in the Americas in 300 BCE to have believed in Yahweh. Deal with it. They may have believed in "a" god or gods (we have record of that) but NOT Yahweh, which is the "only" god Paul is mentioning.
// Because you still have to demonstrate God in a way that works outside of faith to prove that he is real. //
@rationalmuscle Me, I donyt believe in God, dont shuw the burdon of proof over on me. If you believe in god, and claim that he is real, you can just say that some people just wont ever get it, when in fact, some people do believe in God, then they dont. And some people dont believe in God, then they do. Why do I have to prove God, isnt that your job since you claim that he exists?
@rationalmuscle so what it means is everyone knows or has thought of the possiblity of there being a divine being. "If you seek me with all your heart you will find me" Deuteronomy 4:29 so those who didnt fully heartly seek him didnt.
I'm talking about a baby, who's brain isn't completely developed yet, but can still have a relationship with the mother. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? we are like infants; not completely developed yet, and searching to understand god more in our relationship with him. the only way to truly understand is a relationship with god. Those who search will find.
@meattastic1 // I'm talking about a baby, who's brain isn't completely developed yet, but can still have a relationship with the mother. // No, that claim alone is intellectually dishonest. Your first claim was that god did a memory-erase act on humanity to "test" those who would search for him vs those who would not. You need to be responsible for that statement. Babies cannot search for 'anything', so clearly you're referring to adults.
@rationalmuscle My point was that we don't really need to understand everything to have a relationship. I alone can't give you answers you will be satisfied with, only god can give you what you are searching for, and only if you ask. God's attributes are known to all because every person has seen the magnitude of the universe he has created, and EVERY person has an opportunity to search for god in their own hearts...
@meattastic1 Yes, I totally understand what you're trying to say. You are avoiding my direct question, however. Do you think it would be remotely reasonable for YOU to treat a child in such a manner?
That said: I 'do' agree with you concerning the aspects of having to know X amount before a relationship can ensue. However, only a fool would argue against this statement: Intimacy is expanded through knowledge. Still, I respect this comment and thank you for making it. : )
@rationalmuscle I wouldn't treat a child that way, but my point all along has been that i don't understand why god has, i just know he will always be there, this makes sense to me because i've found god, if you don't understand, there's only one path.
There is clearly more going on here than we understand, God's only way to explain to us what we otherwise couldn't understand, is by using terms we would understand, he is called "HE" because he can't be called "IT" he's not an object, but a spiritual being with a greater level of consciousness than our own, and our only word to refer to that would be HE. Also, NO person has power to say that god didn't have a personal relationship with his childern, have you heard of a vision quest?
@meattastic1 It appears you wrote this twice, so I'll answer this one. We begin with a logical fallacy: Assuming (a) God exists; and (b) he/she/it/they created a being incapable of understanding the source of that creation. Seems... silly. A just being would have a least given us the capability to KNOW that being if that being demands to be known, as Yahweh does. In Hebrew, "it" would not need to be used. God is described in plural form in Genesis 1 (let US make man in OUR image)
@rationalmuscle I won't claim to know the nature of the universe, but what makes sence to me is that god put our spirits in a state of forgetfulness to see if we would be able to make our way back to him. If we don't, he will still love us, but we won't be with him because we didn't search for him. Do we really need to understand everything to have a relationship with him? a baby's bond with his or her mother is as strong as any other, and the baby knows very little. We are god's children.
@meattastic1 Question: Would YOU treat your child in such a manner? Answer honestly: Would you in essence wipe the memory of yourself from your child and put him far away from you, just to see if he would "search" for you? Now, add to this the fact that you already KNOW the answer, since you are "all-knowing"... yet do it anyway.
As for being the 'only word', this too is a logical leap. Most gods were poly in nature until Yahweh 'evolved' over the authorship of Genesis from being the El of history to Elohim. Notice the "him"... : )
Finally, no person has the power to say A GOD DID have a personal relationship with ANYONE.
The irony here: You claim "we cannot understand", then state something as specific as a personal relationship! You guys need to make up your minds. Which is it?
I have been thinking about these very questions for a very long time and here's what i have to say; there is clearly more going on than we can possibly understand, God said in the bible that he was a "HE" and had knowable attributes, but this was to put it in a way we could clearly wrap our brains around, he uses our terms to explain to us something we can't completely understand, in our current lives on earth, he had to be called a "HE," not an "IT," only to specify that he is a spiritual
excellent point! watching the god theory, i encountered this theory that we are all god's manifestations. assuming the theory is correct, all of our qualities come from god, including our spiritual thirst to believe in a GOD, and our doubts about bible-being the holy book. At least for me, unless bible is talking in a highly metaphorical, and probably illogical, manner, many of the things in bible don't make sense. so i don't believe in bible yet.
In 500 characters or less? ; ) Briefly: 1. The apostles, especially Paul, were absolutely convinced that Christ's return was to happen in their lifetimes. After all, this was promised by Christ -- and of course post-interpreted NOT to mean what it clearly says post-facto. Go figure. But in order for that to happen, the Gospel had to be preached to 'both jews and gentiles'. Paul's political leaning was away from James' Torah-heavy preaching (see Gal.). In short, keep the sheep happy.
I never mentioned Romans 1 in what you have not dealt with... and to assume I have not read "the whole chapter" is just insulting. I'm a former theologian for crying out loud.
I asked you to deal with Col. 1:23... which you tried to deal with and, of course, failed miserably.
No, you simply do not understand the issues of eschatology, the James Movement, and the political climate during the times this bullshit was written down.
Do you think when Pual says "the gospel... which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven" in Col 1:23 has something to do with the Gospel going to both Jews and Gentiles? See the context: 1:21 "and you, WHO ONCE, were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death". Is it not possible that those 12 apostles were doing what Jesus said and taking the Gospel to "all creation", all of the greco-roman world, jew/gentile, slave/free?
What part of "ALL CREATION UNDER HEAVEN" do you not understand? Please tell me how you can twist this to mean, "Well, no ALL creation under heaven... just the greco-roman world." Please. Spare me. Perhaps look up Greek rules for antecedents while you're at it.
I think you need a good therapist, a dose of reality, and perhaps a cup of coffee.
"Horrible teaching" -- what a joke. You cannot deal with the passage(s)... period. You have NOTHING other than conjecture and bullshit to support what you are saying. You've YET to counter the Yahweh issue... another absurdity on your part, based totally on ignorance of the Torah and reliance on NT scholarship (poor scholarship at that.)
So keep it up... you're entertaining and pathetic. A nifty combo.
If you believe it or not is up to you, but don't think you've disproved anything. How do you prove or disprove that all men have suppressed the knowledge of God given to them? When Paul is talking about the gospel being preached to the entire world, he is obviously speaking within his own paradigm that the listeners would have understood. Word studies aren't everything bud.
Where did you learn hermenuetics? The fact that the Piraha does not have a word for God has nothing to do with Paul's argument. Let me help you understand what paul is saying since you don't get it. His argument is that the creator has instilled some knowledge of himself within man. Man has taken whatever knowledge or understanding of God they had and rejected him ("suppressed the truth"). 2 God has given man up. .
DTS -- and you? Feel free to believe without support from Greek that Paul is saying what you claim... but it's absurd, and it's not supported by the TEXT, which you ignore or simply do not understand.
Your god can feel free to "give us up" as he's a total ass: A mass-murdering, slavery-supporting, misogynistic dick.
Oh, explain Paul's error re: The gospel HAVING been (past-tense) preached in the "entire world". Let's hear your bullshit on this one.
Paul here is arguing that the human race is without excuse for judgment because they have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things". Compare with Rom 3:9-18
So according to Paul, the Piraha have known of God's attributes, but have not submitted to them.
And, of course, you believe this... despite the fact that the Piraha have (a) no 'word' for god... nor have they EVER; (b) all evidence to the contrary documented by a former PASTOR who tried to convert the tribe.
I honestly don't know whether to feel sorry for how naive you are, or pity how misinformed about life you are.
Yep... and he's dead wrong. Just as he was wrong about the gospel being preached "in the entire world" -- not knowing about Australia, the Americas, etc.
So what on earth is Paul's argument when he says "for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" in vs 19, and "For although they KNEW (emphasis added) God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." in vs 21?
There's nothing like a rebuttal that makes my own point.
"For what can be known about YAHWEH is plain to them because YAHWEH has shown it to them."
Lie. Wrong. Error. Period.
Not only are there cultures, like the Piraha, with no WORD for "god" -- no concept, no nothing -- but countless billions who have never heard of nor have a concept of your Yahweh.
Paul was wrong: Just as he was wrong when he said "the Gospel has been preached in the ENTIRE WORLD." Get it?
You seem to be disregarding paul's entire point. He is stating that men do have an understanding within themselves yet have exchanged it for a lie. This is why paul makes it a great point to explain God's giving mankind over to there sin, "to do what ought not to be done". I hate it when people isolate texts of scripture, ignoring entire contexts to make themselves seem scholarly and smarter than everyone else.
No, you seem to be missing Paul's entire point: He never once said anything about an "understanding of the self" -- he said GOD'S ATTRIBUTES. Look up the Greek work for "attribute" and you'll find it to be a rather specific term... and "god"? The term is 'always' Yahve or a variation thereof. I.E. "THAT" God's attributes.
So, Paul believes the Piraha should know of YAHVE'S divinity and attributes. Yeah... right.
I hate it when people are just not smart to begin with.
Wouldn't you say from the entire first chapter of Romans that Paul is stating condition of the gentile? Basically stating that natural man has had some understanding of his creator and has completely exchanged it...
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them
God is just because men break their own moral code, even one that they determine for themselves.
More literal translations read that what can be known about God is evident within them, or manifest in them, or God has shown it to them...a little stronger than simply "plain to them."
These invisible attributes are the 2 listed: His eternal power and His divine nature - which can be seen even "plainly" by observing that the the world carries on before man was born and after he dies, and that somehow all these things have come into being. These are the 2 attributes that Paul is referring to
I suggest doing a study on the Greek word for "nature". It goes far beyond what you are suggesting here.
As for Romans 2, man oh man... without getting into the history of Pauline Christianity and his ever-so-vigilant defense of it to the "believers" of the day... well, that's a long story... but yeah, it's just amazing that this tid-bit was NEVER covered in any of the Torah, nor by Jesus himself. "If ANYONE breaks the slightest of the Law..."
God is by necessity known to all, whether they are aware of it or not. Unawareness is due to denial of truth and identification with a body as one's own identity. One may say, "I don't know God's attributes or God." But what is it that he does not know? How does he not know?
I say, it is impossible not to know. We have deluded ourselves into believing/seeing what is not there, and we forgot what actually is.
Nonsense. You are literally suggesting that you can read the minds of an entire tribe of people -- just 'one' of many groups of individuals who, from over the centuries, knew not of your particular 'god' ... or any 'gods' for that matter (as in this case.) This degree of arrogance is appalling to a rational person.
So, you are saying, that you know about all the content of the repressed mind, the subconscious, dissociated etc? All I was pointing out, was the difference between awareness and knowledge.
No. I am taking 'facts' (i.e. no word for "god" in their language... you know, small tidbits like that) and you are making wild assumptions about what they "really" must know, feel, whatever. Got it backwards.
I hear you, however, the idea that God keeps himself hidden to his creations does not make sense either. What God created must know Him. By that knowledge and link we live, although we may find ourselves in a state of mind where separation seems to be the only reality.
You are committing a logical fallacy here by assuming the conclusion there 'is' a god to be known. The obvious answer is that the bible is simply 'wrong' with this claim, not that it is not logical that god keeps himself hidden. This is the entire point of the argument.
To me it is very obvious that there is a God. God is a fact, no matter, or despite of what anyone may say, did say or will say. It is my personal experience. God is knowable to everyone, in fact, the word "God" is not necessary or defining in any way. It is just what has been used to relate to an experience of totality and wholeness. Of course people make up all sorts of things about "God" and did so through out history, but nothing can substitute for the experience of what truly is.
No, god is 'not' a fact. God is a 'belief'... a fact is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Your personal experience is irrelevant: Many Muslims, Krishna followers, and for that matter witches have profound personal experiences. That does not make it real.
Oh, pooh. Muslims, Krishna followers etc. would still experience the same wholeness and totality, for there can only be one reality. The different cultural avenues are irrelevant to what can be experienced.
Are you then saying that (cultural) differences are absolute? In other words and for example, would an atheistic guy in India experience a 'reality without God' differently than one in the West? Or do you have to admit that, since we all share the same reality, we can all experience the same, whether we actually do or do not, if we strip our perception of reality off all our ideas? That's the real challenge! Who wants to let go of his ideas, and simply experience things as they are?
That God is only a 'belief' to you, is due to a different time wherein you do not recognize this experience. Also, there is probably no one on earth, including yourself, that did not have some experience of God, some definite and certain insight, some "profound experience" that there is more than what meets the eye or what any scientifically proven 'facts' would account for, whether he was in a full recognition of it or not.
Also, how can you say God is not a fact? Does lack of proof establish something as a "non-fact"? Would to any man of the 17th century electricity, based on the absence of (known) 'proof', have to be declared as a 'belief'?
"Lack of proof" means just that: A LACK of evidence. I.E. "not an established fact." You can believe it's a fact all you want. Perhaps someday there will be 'proof'... although Yahve's description in the Bible would render such proof rather spurious.
So bring it on: What is your "proof"? Personal experience? If so, do you just 'discount' the personal experience proof of the literally thousands of differing faiths? Or do you just rationalize it away?
I agree, Yahve's description in the Bible is ridiculous. It is not consistent with either one idea about God. I refer to personal experience of something that has nothing to do with the laws that govern time and space. I look at the experiences of people of different faiths as a result of different ideas about God. But God/Reality/Universal Mind/Truth is one, and is a universal experience, and there are states of enlightenment of various people of all time, that speak of the same thing.
Am I a deist? I don't find terms like that helpful. I simply have an experience of God, and am certain that Jesus Christ is the author of 'A Course In Miracles', which is a manual to re-establish and cultivate a conscious contact with God by letting go of all ideas about oneself and the world.
How do you determine what one can know and cannot know? How would you know what is possible? Also, God may never be within the realm of scientific proof, however, it could happen to you that you have an experience like St. Paul did on his way to Damascus. Can you exclude this possibility? Does your account that God is not a true and real experience, not a fact to you yet then make God into something He is not?
1. There's no proof of Paul's experience, unless you wish to state that everything written in 'all' ancient texts is truth. Then you better believe in dozens of gods raising dozens of people and a few other messiahs from the dead as well.
2. Since you're fond of scripture, just take James 5 literally and call your pastor. Visit the local children's hospital. Let me know what happens.
What can I say? To me it is self-evident that Paul had an experience of the risen Jesus. That does not require of me to believe everything that is written in the Bible or any ancient text. There are so many possible sources of misunderstanding of what was originally said. A lot depends on the mind of the writer, receiver, reader, translator. Not everyone is equally open to understand and accept at any given time.
Wait a sec... you just wrote (and I responded) that Yahve's description is "ridiculous"... yet you believe that Jesus "was" Yahve? Or do you not accept Jesus' "son/god" definition found throughout the NT? Or are you perhaps a Marcionite, believing that Jesus' god/father was 'not' Yahve?
I "believe that Jesus 'was' Yahve?" Where did I indicate something like that? Who and what would be Yahve? When I say God, I refer to the Source or Reality, to truth, Universal Mind. Jesus is a Son of God as much as you and I. There is no difference between what he is and what you are. Otherwise Jesus could never have said, "be you ... perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Of course, it is totally ignored, rejected or misinterpreted by people everywhere.
You did not... Christian theology most certainly 'does' however. Now you can cherry pick all you want, but that leaves your beliefs that much more suspect. Your theology is also off (remember, I am a former theologian) -- Jesus did not claim to be "a" son of god -- "THE ONLY" son of God... huge difference. Also, Greek for "perfect" means "whole and growing". It helps to understand the native languages.
You also dismiss the Apostles' take on Jesus entirely by not believing Jesus = Yahve's son.
In time we certainly appear as many, but of course, there is only ONE Son of God, and you are it. There is no difference between you and Jesus. Of course, Jesus is the Son of Yahve, if that is what you prefer to call God. I just don't want to go along with the definitions we talked about above. God is but Love. Regarding perfect, something growing by definition can't be perfect. What would it grow to? Something more than perfect? That is the whole problem.
Ah... I see... so we just toss out 'all' hermeneutics, theology, and definitions in favor of a new-age version of the old story. It's odd how you do not 'go along' with the definitions until it gets to John and you're down with "god is love".
Regarding "perfect" -- take it up with the author. That's what the term means in Greek. Look it up yourself.
Is that how you gloss over contradictions that you must have seen yourself? How could something be whole while still growing? Unless you say that evolution involves perfection and wholeness, because that is the only goal one could possibly have and evolve to, your reply does not help. But if you are already whole and perfect, the time it took you to get there must be illusion. Why don't you scratch your head a little? Maybe that helps.
I think you need a head to scratch. "Gloss over contradicitons?" I'm simply telling you what the text says. And of course I consider the text meaningless jabber to begin with. It's you who are dumping your own self-guided interpretation upon the already hapless and confused text to render some sort of feel-good 'god'. Knock yourself out, but just realize you're bullshitting yourself by citing scripture as any basis for your beliefs. It's nothing new for a theist to live in delusion.
No, because it does not mean "perfect" man... the Greeks had many words for one. For example, 'they' would find contradiction in "I love chocolate". They had no such word for love. And the closest word we had at the time for this was "perfect". In some bibles it is now rendered "complete", just as Matthew 19:21 should be "complete" (same word.) Perfect makes no sense there, but "complete" was not a common term until recently in this context.
I'm sorry I missed this video for so long. Great job!
Very solid points, especially the consequences of the Word still not reaching many parts of the world (I just finished the book on the Pirahã, by the way).
I also like the dichotomy (either Paul is wrong or God is unjust) that you force on the believer. I'd love to see a theist come in to argue against these points.
I remember a very forceful religious person using the Romans 1:20 "without excuse" scare tactic on me.
On a matter of semantics, "god" didn't use "just" to describe himself, whoever wrote the bible used it (sorry, had to). However, wouldn't you agree that justice is entirely subjective? Whether to the current culturally accepted behaviours, or simply to the one who feels judgement is required? For example, xtians feel justified in calling homosexuallity wrong. Some tribes have laws that we don't understand and would call seemingly arbitrary actions heinous.
1. True, but the scriptures clearly indicate that "god" was speaking to and through the writers declaring himself just.
2. To a point, yes... but when you try and claim that murdering children is "just" then you're just fucking insane. When societies evolve, a sense of justice evolves with them. That's why such acts as found in the bible are horrid to the vast majority of the world. We all have a "reasonable" sense of justice.
But that's was what I was trying to say, justice seems to be largely subjective, so any person/thing, whether real, or imaginary, is free to use it to describe any actions that they feel are justified. Since most people won't do something they feel is UNjustified, it follows that everything we do is justified in our own minds somehow. The issue is when modern day xtians cling to those beliefs and try to force them onto everyone else. Apart from that, I really liked the video and await more =)
Morals are relative, to be sure, but IF the Christian god demanded the murder of infants, I would surely classify him as "immoral" in any time period. Therefore, regardless of whether or not some section of the planet may be fine with it, I reject it completely, along with slavery, etc.
There was a time when we viewed slavery as moral. We grew up. Yahveh and his followers never have. ; )
Frankly, it's no wonder that for so long throughout the history of the Church, the Bible was off limits to ordinary lay-people and printed in Latin, so as to render it incomprehensible by anyone but the most well educated clergy. Actually reading the Bible is one of the most deleterious actions to faith that I can think of.
Thanks zendragon333. Honestly, I slapped this together until I could do a more proper job, so it's probably my fault. The text from Romans claims that God's "attributes" are known to all. Paul obviously thought one of those attributes was "gender", referring to him as "he". The evidence says something entirely different. You do not have lands of people rebelling against "Yahveh" -- you have people evolving into their own god myths. Just what we'd expect.
I've wondered about the religions of other people/nations/tribes, Your two examples are wonderful, thanks for the info. I also was confused by the quote at around 35 secs, and the two parts, "his invisible attributes" " have been seen clearly", doesn't seem rational to me, but I'm sure that was your point, if not I missed the point.
This has been flagged as spam show
Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep.
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills.
=> for more information type in google "thedeenshow"
akeello 3 months ago
since the first days of man, God has shown all men His invisible atributes in a plain to see way through all that is made. Since those early days until now, most men have not cared to see things for what they are. All people were and still are haters of God and supress the truth. That God saves some from such a state and how he saves them is a testimony to His other atributes, the visibile ones, such as justice, wisdom, and love. If you would like to know more email me @ ethan.r.leavitt@gmail
ethanthereed 7 months ago
@ethanthereed So, your rebuttal to the facts presented in my video is a regurgitation of Romans?
Try harder.
For starters, try explaining Genesis 1:2 without using circular reasoning. Do that, and we'll chat all you want. And Ethan, do keep in mind that I'm an ex-minister, so I know the scriptures better than most. Thanks.
rationalmuscle 6 months ago
I feel I must put forth the simple idea that these things are not to be taken too literally. I'm not talking about bending things to fit whatever you want, but just plain common sense. When Paul said "known to all" the "all" in his statement is clearly directed to those in his sphere of knowledge... those living at that time in that society - he's obviously not talking about people in remote tribes whose existence was totally unknown to him.
LPC1200 11 months ago
@LPC1200 That would be a rather nonsensical take on this passage. Paul's argument concludes with, "so no man is without excuse." Are you really going to posit that Paul meant "no man IN THIS AREA is without excuse"? Paul also thought the gospel had reached "the entire world". (Col. 1:23) We have Paul 'clearly' proclaiming the 'world' will be judged, as does Christ, repeatedly.
No, I'm afraid it means what it actually says.
Go figure.
rationalmuscle 11 months ago
So, what you are saying is that some people just cant believe in God. thats nonsense. Becaues allot of atheist have been former believers. And btw, it doesnt matter. Because you still have to demonstrate God in a way that works outside of faith to prove that he is real.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk // So, what you are saying is that some people just cant believe in God. //
Yep. It's 100% impossible for someone who lived in the Americas in 300 BCE to have believed in Yahweh. Deal with it. They may have believed in "a" god or gods (we have record of that) but NOT Yahweh, which is the "only" god Paul is mentioning.
// Because you still have to demonstrate God in a way that works outside of faith to prove that he is real. //
No, that would be YOU.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle Me, I donyt believe in God, dont shuw the burdon of proof over on me. If you believe in god, and claim that he is real, you can just say that some people just wont ever get it, when in fact, some people do believe in God, then they dont. And some people dont believe in God, then they do. Why do I have to prove God, isnt that your job since you claim that he exists?
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk You obviously do not believe in reading, either.
I'm an atheist.
Perhaps you should 'watch' the videos before commenting, yes?
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle so what it means is everyone knows or has thought of the possiblity of there being a divine being. "If you seek me with all your heart you will find me" Deuteronomy 4:29 so those who didnt fully heartly seek him didnt.
beyondrunning 10 months ago
I'm talking about a baby, who's brain isn't completely developed yet, but can still have a relationship with the mother. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? we are like infants; not completely developed yet, and searching to understand god more in our relationship with him. the only way to truly understand is a relationship with god. Those who search will find.
meattastic1 1 year ago
@meattastic1 // I'm talking about a baby, who's brain isn't completely developed yet, but can still have a relationship with the mother. // No, that claim alone is intellectually dishonest. Your first claim was that god did a memory-erase act on humanity to "test" those who would search for him vs those who would not. You need to be responsible for that statement. Babies cannot search for 'anything', so clearly you're referring to adults.
Again: What parent would do this?
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle My point was that we don't really need to understand everything to have a relationship. I alone can't give you answers you will be satisfied with, only god can give you what you are searching for, and only if you ask. God's attributes are known to all because every person has seen the magnitude of the universe he has created, and EVERY person has an opportunity to search for god in their own hearts...
meattastic1 1 year ago
@meattastic1 Yes, I totally understand what you're trying to say. You are avoiding my direct question, however. Do you think it would be remotely reasonable for YOU to treat a child in such a manner?
That said: I 'do' agree with you concerning the aspects of having to know X amount before a relationship can ensue. However, only a fool would argue against this statement: Intimacy is expanded through knowledge. Still, I respect this comment and thank you for making it. : )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle I wouldn't treat a child that way, but my point all along has been that i don't understand why god has, i just know he will always be there, this makes sense to me because i've found god, if you don't understand, there's only one path.
meattastic1 1 year ago
@meattastic1 Of course you wouldn't. And why? Because you find it immoral. Just rest with that idea for more than a minute.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
There is clearly more going on here than we understand, God's only way to explain to us what we otherwise couldn't understand, is by using terms we would understand, he is called "HE" because he can't be called "IT" he's not an object, but a spiritual being with a greater level of consciousness than our own, and our only word to refer to that would be HE. Also, NO person has power to say that god didn't have a personal relationship with his childern, have you heard of a vision quest?
meattastic1 1 year ago
@meattastic1 It appears you wrote this twice, so I'll answer this one. We begin with a logical fallacy: Assuming (a) God exists; and (b) he/she/it/they created a being incapable of understanding the source of that creation. Seems... silly. A just being would have a least given us the capability to KNOW that being if that being demands to be known, as Yahweh does. In Hebrew, "it" would not need to be used. God is described in plural form in Genesis 1 (let US make man in OUR image)
(cont)
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle I won't claim to know the nature of the universe, but what makes sence to me is that god put our spirits in a state of forgetfulness to see if we would be able to make our way back to him. If we don't, he will still love us, but we won't be with him because we didn't search for him. Do we really need to understand everything to have a relationship with him? a baby's bond with his or her mother is as strong as any other, and the baby knows very little. We are god's children.
meattastic1 1 year ago
@meattastic1 Question: Would YOU treat your child in such a manner? Answer honestly: Would you in essence wipe the memory of yourself from your child and put him far away from you, just to see if he would "search" for you? Now, add to this the fact that you already KNOW the answer, since you are "all-knowing"... yet do it anyway.
What kind of a parent would do this?
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@meattastic1 (con't)
As for being the 'only word', this too is a logical leap. Most gods were poly in nature until Yahweh 'evolved' over the authorship of Genesis from being the El of history to Elohim. Notice the "him"... : )
Finally, no person has the power to say A GOD DID have a personal relationship with ANYONE.
The irony here: You claim "we cannot understand", then state something as specific as a personal relationship! You guys need to make up your minds. Which is it?
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
I have been thinking about these very questions for a very long time and here's what i have to say; there is clearly more going on than we can possibly understand, God said in the bible that he was a "HE" and had knowable attributes, but this was to put it in a way we could clearly wrap our brains around, he uses our terms to explain to us something we can't completely understand, in our current lives on earth, he had to be called a "HE," not an "IT," only to specify that he is a spiritual
meattastic1 1 year ago
excellent point! watching the god theory, i encountered this theory that we are all god's manifestations. assuming the theory is correct, all of our qualities come from god, including our spiritual thirst to believe in a GOD, and our doubts about bible-being the holy book. At least for me, unless bible is talking in a highly metaphorical, and probably illogical, manner, many of the things in bible don't make sense. so i don't believe in bible yet.
musiccabin 1 year ago
Please help me understand the issues of eschatology, the James Movement, and the political climate.
MrNtarango 2 years ago
In 500 characters or less? ; ) Briefly: 1. The apostles, especially Paul, were absolutely convinced that Christ's return was to happen in their lifetimes. After all, this was promised by Christ -- and of course post-interpreted NOT to mean what it clearly says post-facto. Go figure. But in order for that to happen, the Gospel had to be preached to 'both jews and gentiles'. Paul's political leaning was away from James' Torah-heavy preaching (see Gal.). In short, keep the sheep happy.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
How have I not dealt with Rom 1:18-21? Can you please read the WHOLE CHAPTER.
MrNtarango 2 years ago
I never mentioned Romans 1 in what you have not dealt with... and to assume I have not read "the whole chapter" is just insulting. I'm a former theologian for crying out loud.
I asked you to deal with Col. 1:23... which you tried to deal with and, of course, failed miserably.
No, you simply do not understand the issues of eschatology, the James Movement, and the political climate during the times this bullshit was written down.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Not the same text as Rom 1:8 that says the to the Romans, "because your faith is proclaimed in all the world".
MrNtarango 2 years ago
Do you think when Pual says "the gospel... which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven" in Col 1:23 has something to do with the Gospel going to both Jews and Gentiles? See the context: 1:21 "and you, WHO ONCE, were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death". Is it not possible that those 12 apostles were doing what Jesus said and taking the Gospel to "all creation", all of the greco-roman world, jew/gentile, slave/free?
MrNtarango 2 years ago
Nice try, but no cigar.
What part of "ALL CREATION UNDER HEAVEN" do you not understand? Please tell me how you can twist this to mean, "Well, no ALL creation under heaven... just the greco-roman world." Please. Spare me. Perhaps look up Greek rules for antecedents while you're at it.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Where were you trained? please tell me so i can use it as an example of what horrible teaching leads to.
MrNtarango 2 years ago
I think you need a refresher on understanding historical literature.
I think you should read any introduction to biblical hermenuetics. I like the one by Kaiser and Silva
MrNtarango 2 years ago
I think you need a good therapist, a dose of reality, and perhaps a cup of coffee.
"Horrible teaching" -- what a joke. You cannot deal with the passage(s)... period. You have NOTHING other than conjecture and bullshit to support what you are saying. You've YET to counter the Yahweh issue... another absurdity on your part, based totally on ignorance of the Torah and reliance on NT scholarship (poor scholarship at that.)
So keep it up... you're entertaining and pathetic. A nifty combo.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
If you believe it or not is up to you, but don't think you've disproved anything. How do you prove or disprove that all men have suppressed the knowledge of God given to them? When Paul is talking about the gospel being preached to the entire world, he is obviously speaking within his own paradigm that the listeners would have understood. Word studies aren't everything bud.
MrNtarango 2 years ago
Where did you learn hermenuetics? The fact that the Piraha does not have a word for God has nothing to do with Paul's argument. Let me help you understand what paul is saying since you don't get it. His argument is that the creator has instilled some knowledge of himself within man. Man has taken whatever knowledge or understanding of God they had and rejected him ("suppressed the truth"). 2 God has given man up. .
MrNtarango 2 years ago
// Where did you learn hermeneutics?//
DTS -- and you? Feel free to believe without support from Greek that Paul is saying what you claim... but it's absurd, and it's not supported by the TEXT, which you ignore or simply do not understand.
Your god can feel free to "give us up" as he's a total ass: A mass-murdering, slavery-supporting, misogynistic dick.
Oh, explain Paul's error re: The gospel HAVING been (past-tense) preached in the "entire world". Let's hear your bullshit on this one.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Paul here is arguing that the human race is without excuse for judgment because they have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things". Compare with Rom 3:9-18
So according to Paul, the Piraha have known of God's attributes, but have not submitted to them.
MrNtarango 2 years ago
And, of course, you believe this... despite the fact that the Piraha have (a) no 'word' for god... nor have they EVER; (b) all evidence to the contrary documented by a former PASTOR who tried to convert the tribe.
I honestly don't know whether to feel sorry for how naive you are, or pity how misinformed about life you are.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Yep... and he's dead wrong. Just as he was wrong about the gospel being preached "in the entire world" -- not knowing about Australia, the Americas, etc.
Error. Deal with it.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
So what on earth is Paul's argument when he says "for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" in vs 19, and "For although they KNEW (emphasis added) God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." in vs 21?
MrNtarango 2 years ago
There's nothing like a rebuttal that makes my own point.
"For what can be known about YAHWEH is plain to them because YAHWEH has shown it to them."
Lie. Wrong. Error. Period.
Not only are there cultures, like the Piraha, with no WORD for "god" -- no concept, no nothing -- but countless billions who have never heard of nor have a concept of your Yahweh.
Paul was wrong: Just as he was wrong when he said "the Gospel has been preached in the ENTIRE WORLD." Get it?
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
You seem to be disregarding paul's entire point. He is stating that men do have an understanding within themselves yet have exchanged it for a lie. This is why paul makes it a great point to explain God's giving mankind over to there sin, "to do what ought not to be done". I hate it when people isolate texts of scripture, ignoring entire contexts to make themselves seem scholarly and smarter than everyone else.
MrNtarango 2 years ago
No, you seem to be missing Paul's entire point: He never once said anything about an "understanding of the self" -- he said GOD'S ATTRIBUTES. Look up the Greek work for "attribute" and you'll find it to be a rather specific term... and "god"? The term is 'always' Yahve or a variation thereof. I.E. "THAT" God's attributes.
So, Paul believes the Piraha should know of YAHVE'S divinity and attributes. Yeah... right.
I hate it when people are just not smart to begin with.
Swing and a miss...
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Wouldn't you say from the entire first chapter of Romans that Paul is stating condition of the gentile? Basically stating that natural man has had some understanding of his creator and has completely exchanged it...
MrNtarango 2 years ago
In regards to God's justice, let's observe more of what Paul wrote.
Romans 2:14-16
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them
God is just because men break their own moral code, even one that they determine for themselves.
ishybuba 2 years ago
More literal translations read that what can be known about God is evident within them, or manifest in them, or God has shown it to them...a little stronger than simply "plain to them."
These invisible attributes are the 2 listed: His eternal power and His divine nature - which can be seen even "plainly" by observing that the the world carries on before man was born and after he dies, and that somehow all these things have come into being. These are the 2 attributes that Paul is referring to
ishybuba 2 years ago
Er... close, but no cigar.
I suggest doing a study on the Greek word for "nature". It goes far beyond what you are suggesting here.
As for Romans 2, man oh man... without getting into the history of Pauline Christianity and his ever-so-vigilant defense of it to the "believers" of the day... well, that's a long story... but yeah, it's just amazing that this tid-bit was NEVER covered in any of the Torah, nor by Jesus himself. "If ANYONE breaks the slightest of the Law..."
More post-facto BS.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
How does one know that he does not know? How does one know what he does not know?
who000are000you 2 years ago
God is by necessity known to all, whether they are aware of it or not. Unawareness is due to denial of truth and identification with a body as one's own identity. One may say, "I don't know God's attributes or God." But what is it that he does not know? How does he not know?
I say, it is impossible not to know. We have deluded ourselves into believing/seeing what is not there, and we forgot what actually is.
who000are000you 2 years ago
Nonsense. You are literally suggesting that you can read the minds of an entire tribe of people -- just 'one' of many groups of individuals who, from over the centuries, knew not of your particular 'god' ... or any 'gods' for that matter (as in this case.) This degree of arrogance is appalling to a rational person.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
So, you are saying, that you know about all the content of the repressed mind, the subconscious, dissociated etc? All I was pointing out, was the difference between awareness and knowledge.
who000are000you 2 years ago
No. I am taking 'facts' (i.e. no word for "god" in their language... you know, small tidbits like that) and you are making wild assumptions about what they "really" must know, feel, whatever. Got it backwards.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I hear you, however, the idea that God keeps himself hidden to his creations does not make sense either. What God created must know Him. By that knowledge and link we live, although we may find ourselves in a state of mind where separation seems to be the only reality.
who000are000you 2 years ago
You are committing a logical fallacy here by assuming the conclusion there 'is' a god to be known. The obvious answer is that the bible is simply 'wrong' with this claim, not that it is not logical that god keeps himself hidden. This is the entire point of the argument.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
To me it is very obvious that there is a God. God is a fact, no matter, or despite of what anyone may say, did say or will say. It is my personal experience. God is knowable to everyone, in fact, the word "God" is not necessary or defining in any way. It is just what has been used to relate to an experience of totality and wholeness. Of course people make up all sorts of things about "God" and did so through out history, but nothing can substitute for the experience of what truly is.
who000are000you 2 years ago
No, god is 'not' a fact. God is a 'belief'... a fact is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Your personal experience is irrelevant: Many Muslims, Krishna followers, and for that matter witches have profound personal experiences. That does not make it real.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Oh, pooh. Muslims, Krishna followers etc. would still experience the same wholeness and totality, for there can only be one reality. The different cultural avenues are irrelevant to what can be experienced.
who000are000you 2 years ago
// there can be only one reality//
In your mind and world-view perhaps, but ... well, you believe based on feelings. That's not much of a 'fact' now is it?
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Are you then saying that (cultural) differences are absolute? In other words and for example, would an atheistic guy in India experience a 'reality without God' differently than one in the West? Or do you have to admit that, since we all share the same reality, we can all experience the same, whether we actually do or do not, if we strip our perception of reality off all our ideas? That's the real challenge! Who wants to let go of his ideas, and simply experience things as they are?
who000are000you 2 years ago
That God is only a 'belief' to you, is due to a different time wherein you do not recognize this experience. Also, there is probably no one on earth, including yourself, that did not have some experience of God, some definite and certain insight, some "profound experience" that there is more than what meets the eye or what any scientifically proven 'facts' would account for, whether he was in a full recognition of it or not.
who000are000you 2 years ago
Also, how can you say God is not a fact? Does lack of proof establish something as a "non-fact"? Would to any man of the 17th century electricity, based on the absence of (known) 'proof', have to be declared as a 'belief'?
who000are000you 2 years ago
Your logic is entertaining.
"Lack of proof" means just that: A LACK of evidence. I.E. "not an established fact." You can believe it's a fact all you want. Perhaps someday there will be 'proof'... although Yahve's description in the Bible would render such proof rather spurious.
So bring it on: What is your "proof"? Personal experience? If so, do you just 'discount' the personal experience proof of the literally thousands of differing faiths? Or do you just rationalize it away?
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I agree, Yahve's description in the Bible is ridiculous. It is not consistent with either one idea about God. I refer to personal experience of something that has nothing to do with the laws that govern time and space. I look at the experiences of people of different faiths as a result of different ideas about God. But God/Reality/Universal Mind/Truth is one, and is a universal experience, and there are states of enlightenment of various people of all time, that speak of the same thing.
who000are000you 2 years ago
Ah... my bad then. So you are a deist?
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Am I a deist? I don't find terms like that helpful. I simply have an experience of God, and am certain that Jesus Christ is the author of 'A Course In Miracles', which is a manual to re-establish and cultivate a conscious contact with God by letting go of all ideas about oneself and the world.
who000are000you 2 years ago
I say, a universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible, but necessary.
who000are000you 2 years ago
How do you determine what one can know and cannot know? How would you know what is possible? Also, God may never be within the realm of scientific proof, however, it could happen to you that you have an experience like St. Paul did on his way to Damascus. Can you exclude this possibility? Does your account that God is not a true and real experience, not a fact to you yet then make God into something He is not?
who000are000you 2 years ago
1. There's no proof of Paul's experience, unless you wish to state that everything written in 'all' ancient texts is truth. Then you better believe in dozens of gods raising dozens of people and a few other messiahs from the dead as well.
2. Since you're fond of scripture, just take James 5 literally and call your pastor. Visit the local children's hospital. Let me know what happens.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
What can I say? To me it is self-evident that Paul had an experience of the risen Jesus. That does not require of me to believe everything that is written in the Bible or any ancient text. There are so many possible sources of misunderstanding of what was originally said. A lot depends on the mind of the writer, receiver, reader, translator. Not everyone is equally open to understand and accept at any given time.
who000are000you 2 years ago
Wait a sec... you just wrote (and I responded) that Yahve's description is "ridiculous"... yet you believe that Jesus "was" Yahve? Or do you not accept Jesus' "son/god" definition found throughout the NT? Or are you perhaps a Marcionite, believing that Jesus' god/father was 'not' Yahve?
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I "believe that Jesus 'was' Yahve?" Where did I indicate something like that? Who and what would be Yahve? When I say God, I refer to the Source or Reality, to truth, Universal Mind. Jesus is a Son of God as much as you and I. There is no difference between what he is and what you are. Otherwise Jesus could never have said, "be you ... perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Of course, it is totally ignored, rejected or misinterpreted by people everywhere.
who000are000you 2 years ago
You did not... Christian theology most certainly 'does' however. Now you can cherry pick all you want, but that leaves your beliefs that much more suspect. Your theology is also off (remember, I am a former theologian) -- Jesus did not claim to be "a" son of god -- "THE ONLY" son of God... huge difference. Also, Greek for "perfect" means "whole and growing". It helps to understand the native languages.
You also dismiss the Apostles' take on Jesus entirely by not believing Jesus = Yahve's son.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
In time we certainly appear as many, but of course, there is only ONE Son of God, and you are it. There is no difference between you and Jesus. Of course, Jesus is the Son of Yahve, if that is what you prefer to call God. I just don't want to go along with the definitions we talked about above. God is but Love. Regarding perfect, something growing by definition can't be perfect. What would it grow to? Something more than perfect? That is the whole problem.
who000are000you 2 years ago
Ah... I see... so we just toss out 'all' hermeneutics, theology, and definitions in favor of a new-age version of the old story. It's odd how you do not 'go along' with the definitions until it gets to John and you're down with "god is love".
Regarding "perfect" -- take it up with the author. That's what the term means in Greek. Look it up yourself.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Is that how you gloss over contradictions that you must have seen yourself? How could something be whole while still growing? Unless you say that evolution involves perfection and wholeness, because that is the only goal one could possibly have and evolve to, your reply does not help. But if you are already whole and perfect, the time it took you to get there must be illusion. Why don't you scratch your head a little? Maybe that helps.
who000are000you 2 years ago
I think you need a head to scratch. "Gloss over contradicitons?" I'm simply telling you what the text says. And of course I consider the text meaningless jabber to begin with. It's you who are dumping your own self-guided interpretation upon the already hapless and confused text to render some sort of feel-good 'god'. Knock yourself out, but just realize you're bullshitting yourself by citing scripture as any basis for your beliefs. It's nothing new for a theist to live in delusion.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Do you see a contradiction in the Greek meaning of the word for "perfect"?
who000are000you 2 years ago
No, because it does not mean "perfect" man... the Greeks had many words for one. For example, 'they' would find contradiction in "I love chocolate". They had no such word for love. And the closest word we had at the time for this was "perfect". In some bibles it is now rendered "complete", just as Matthew 19:21 should be "complete" (same word.) Perfect makes no sense there, but "complete" was not a common term until recently in this context.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I'm sorry I missed this video for so long. Great job!
Very solid points, especially the consequences of the Word still not reaching many parts of the world (I just finished the book on the Pirahã, by the way).
I also like the dichotomy (either Paul is wrong or God is unjust) that you force on the believer. I'd love to see a theist come in to argue against these points.
I remember a very forceful religious person using the Romans 1:20 "without excuse" scare tactic on me.
43alley 2 years ago
Thanks 43. It's a common tactic, and of course they have to imagine that "God turned the Pirahã over to a delusion..." blah blah blah.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
On a matter of semantics, "god" didn't use "just" to describe himself, whoever wrote the bible used it (sorry, had to). However, wouldn't you agree that justice is entirely subjective? Whether to the current culturally accepted behaviours, or simply to the one who feels judgement is required? For example, xtians feel justified in calling homosexuallity wrong. Some tribes have laws that we don't understand and would call seemingly arbitrary actions heinous.
Sack42 2 years ago
1. True, but the scriptures clearly indicate that "god" was speaking to and through the writers declaring himself just.
2. To a point, yes... but when you try and claim that murdering children is "just" then you're just fucking insane. When societies evolve, a sense of justice evolves with them. That's why such acts as found in the bible are horrid to the vast majority of the world. We all have a "reasonable" sense of justice.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
But that's was what I was trying to say, justice seems to be largely subjective, so any person/thing, whether real, or imaginary, is free to use it to describe any actions that they feel are justified. Since most people won't do something they feel is UNjustified, it follows that everything we do is justified in our own minds somehow. The issue is when modern day xtians cling to those beliefs and try to force them onto everyone else. Apart from that, I really liked the video and await more =)
Sack42 2 years ago
Morals are relative, to be sure, but IF the Christian god demanded the murder of infants, I would surely classify him as "immoral" in any time period. Therefore, regardless of whether or not some section of the planet may be fine with it, I reject it completely, along with slavery, etc.
There was a time when we viewed slavery as moral. We grew up. Yahveh and his followers never have. ; )
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Frankly, it's no wonder that for so long throughout the history of the Church, the Bible was off limits to ordinary lay-people and printed in Latin, so as to render it incomprehensible by anyone but the most well educated clergy. Actually reading the Bible is one of the most deleterious actions to faith that I can think of.
TimCubUAkbar 2 years ago
Yep. That was indeed part of the plan. Apologetics started before people needed a reason for it.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
Thanks zendragon333. Honestly, I slapped this together until I could do a more proper job, so it's probably my fault. The text from Romans claims that God's "attributes" are known to all. Paul obviously thought one of those attributes was "gender", referring to him as "he". The evidence says something entirely different. You do not have lands of people rebelling against "Yahveh" -- you have people evolving into their own god myths. Just what we'd expect.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
I've wondered about the religions of other people/nations/tribes, Your two examples are wonderful, thanks for the info. I also was confused by the quote at around 35 secs, and the two parts, "his invisible attributes" " have been seen clearly", doesn't seem rational to me, but I'm sure that was your point, if not I missed the point.
zendragon333 2 years ago